£1.3m city cycling shake-up could see Norwich streets closed to traffic

A £1.3m shake-up to make it easier for cyclists to get around Norwich could see motorists prevented from driving through a number of city roads, with 20mph limits introduced on more than two dozen more.

In proposals likely to prove contentious, officers at Norwich City Council have come up with schemes which could limit how drivers make their way through parts of Earlham and the Golden Triangle.

Suggestions include closing off one end of The Avenues to cars and preventing traffic, other than cycles, from using Park Lane to get between Earlham Road and Unthank Road. Another proposal would stop Vauxhall Street from being used as cut through to the ring road.

A number of proposals and options go out for consultation today, as part of the £5.7m Push The Pedalways project.

That project, awarded £3.7m by the Department of Health, aims to improve the eight-mile pink pedalway cycle route between the Norwich Research Park and Heartsease.

The public is being urged to have a say on the proposals.

Mike Stonard, Norwich City Council cabinet member for environment, development and transport, said: “Push the Pedalways is about enhancing the city so we want to hear how people feel about the options on offer - whether they are cyclists, nearby residents or other road users.

“By informing our decisions in this way, we hope it will result in changes that encourage more people to make a habit of cycling and walking, bringing the health and environmental benefits that come with it.”

In the months ahead, more consultations will be carried out in areas such as Earlham Road, Adelaide Street, Bethel Street, Tombland, the University of East Anglia and the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital.

• Do you have a view on the proposals? Why not submit a letter for publication by writing, giving full contact details, to Letters Editor, Prospect House, Rouen Road, Norwich NR1 1RE.

THE AVENUES

The scheme in The Avenues is set to cost £800,000. Three options have been put forward. Two of them would see the road closed to traffic on the Colman Road side, after the George Borrow Road junction. Traffic could still get into the road via Bluebell Road.

Option one would also see the partial restoration of the verges, so cars could park on them, with a speed table and a cycle lane added to each carriageway.

Option two would see the speed table, but no new cycle lane. A key change, however, would be to prevent verge parking, so drivers would have to park on the street.

Option three would still allow traffic to travel all the way along The Avenues, but with a cycle lane on each side of the road, a speed table and traffic calming pinch-points.

In all the options, the 20mph limit on Bluebell Road would be moved to north of The Avenues junction. Twenty mile per hour speed limits would also be introduced on dozens of other streets, including North Park Avenue, George Borrow Road, Lovelace Road, Elizabeth Fry Road, Northfields, De Hague Road and Henderson Road.

Where The Avenues meet Colman Road, at the Burnett Square shops, further changes are planned, including extended waiting boxes on the cycle path in The Avenues and new traffic signals giving cyclists a few seconds to pull away before other traffic can continue.

The proposals also feature a cycle track connecting to a combined cyclist and pedestrian crossing on Colman Road just to the north of The Avenues and a new signal controlled crossing to the south of the Avenues.

After the consultation, work on this section could start in spring or summer next year.

PARK LANE/UNTHANK ROAD/VAUXHALL STREET/ESSEX STREET

Changes in the Park Lane/Vauxhall Street area would cost £200,000. The aims is to cut the amount of traffic using Avenue Road, Park Lane, Essex Street and Vauxhall Street, while making it easier for cyclists.

In Park Lane, three options have been proposed. Option one would see bollards placed in Park Lane, either side of the junction with Avenue Road, to stop traffic, other than bicycles, getting through.

Option two would close off Park Lane between the junction of Avenue Road and Mill Hill Road and make Park Lane one way only from Unthank Road up to the junction with Avenue Road.

Both those options would mean drivers could no longer use Park Lane to get between Earlham Road and Unthank Road.

The third option would not close any part of Park Lane, but would make the section between Unthank Road and Avenue Road one way.

In Unthank Road there are two options. Both involve a mini roundabout at the junction with Park Lane.

One option would take away the pedestrian crossing on the city centre side of Essex Street and put in a new zebra crossing over Unthank Road between the Park Lane and Essex Street junction.

The other option would see the existing pedestrian crossing upgraded. Both options would see the 20mph limit, which currently starts just before Tesco, extended further up Unthank Road towards the city centre.

Other proposals include traffic calming in Essex Street, preventing traffic from going all the way along Vauxhall Street (with a closure point near the Trory Street junction and making Rupert Street one way for traffic, other than cycles, so drivers could only head northbound along it.

Following consultation, work would be due to start in this area this autumn.

MAGDALEN STREET

A third consultation is for Magdalen Street and Cowgate.

A £250,000 scheme would see contra-flow cycling in Magdalen Street, between Edward Street and Bull Close Road, and in Cowgate, between Magdalen Street and Peacock Street.

That scheme has already been given the green light by city and county councillors and is now out for statutory consultation.

HOW TO HAVE YOUR SAY

Full details on the various schemes can be downloaded from Norwich City Council’s consultation pages here.

The website includes an online survey for The Avenues and the Park Lane to Vauxhall Street consultations, where people can share their views and select their preferred options.

There are also a number of events where people can drop in to view displays with full details of the proposals, as follows:

The Avenues: Wednesday, June 18 from 1pm until 6.45pm at the scout hut next to St Anne’s Church in Colman Road. Project staff will be available to answer questions and talk through the proposals throughout the day.

Park Lane to Vauxhall Street: Thursday, June 12 from 2pm until 6.45pm at Trinity Church Hall in Cambridge Street. Project staff will be available to answer questions and talk through the proposals.

Magdalen Street: For the statutory consultation, proposals for Magdalen Street will be on display in the cafe at Epic Studios in Magdalen Street from today until Monday, June 23.

Currently trending

Nucking futs!!!
You cannot not close certain roads JUST for cyclists and expect people to comply can you?????.
I live in the crux of Park Lane Avenue Road Earlham and Unthank Rd, I use all of these roads to get tofrom work and for social reasons......IF you think i'm buying a bike think again numbnuts coz I ain't!!!.
You are going to create rat-runs and congestion...oh and what about the poor parents dropping the offsprings off at Avenue Road school????....how on earth will they get them to school if not in a car4x4?.
Hadn't thought of that had you?.

@andyt - because motorists (and most cyclists) in Norwich are thick? Why are bus lanes closed to cars after the busses stop running? You observe the bus lane on earlham road by the cathedral. It's only a bus lane until 9:30am but I challenge you to find a motorist who ever uses it.....

Of course you could just close the City. Remove the cars and the shoppers will take their money elsewhere to the out of town business parks where they can shop without grief. Turn the City over to the cyclists and board up the shops as the City dies. Why is the car driver blamed for the congestion? At the front of most trafic jams is either a bus stopped in the middle of the road off loading, or a pair of cyclists going side by side. Why are the bus lanes closed to cars after the buses have stopped? Why not use the space already available to help increase traffic flow?

@ monkeynuts. I suppose thast's why most cyclist use the pavements? Free choice. The idea of closing the city to get motorists out of their cars is ridiculous! I drive 15 miles to work. Buses are no good and not near a rail station. Why would I want to cycle up the A11? I wear a suit and carry a lap top. How could you do this on a bike. Once it rains you'd look a mess or a Green councillor....

Personally, I'm up for anything that further antagonises the poor 'ickle car driver and shows up car driving for the increasing folly it is (except for when I need to take stuff down the tip obviously). I also stop at red lights and pay tax don't you know!

@monkeynuts - yes I'm fully aware of that thank you. Personally as a cyclist if I am provided with a cycle path I would prefer to use it than be on the road and then allow the traffic to be unimpeded. But I'm also fully aware that I am not REQUIRED to do so. And I am sure there are plenty of arrogant cyclists out there who would choose the road just because........
However, in this particular case we are talking about are you really saying that if the council provides a cycle route that deviates from the straight line by a few hundred yards, then cyclists are entitled to cycle the wrong way down a one way street instead?
And are you also then saying that having spent several hundred thousand pounds on the first route, the council should then spend several hundred thousand pounds building a new route just because cyclists choose to break the law and cycle down that one way street?
Clearly - the council think so.
Me - I'm not so sure.
If they built a one way street and motorists just ignored it and drove down it anyway, what do you think would happen?
Just sayin'

@norwichred. So you're a motorist? Then why don't you know what the HC says in regard to cycle paths? in case you need a help...Cyclists are under no obligation to use cycle paths. In much the same way as motorists can pick and choose what roads, be they A, B or motorways. Cyclists can pick what routes are safe and convenient for them.

BTW, everyone moaning about cyclists are totally, totally, totally missing the point. Schemes like this are not their for the benefit of current cyclists, who happy cycle with traffic already. They are there to encouraging non cyclists out of their cars and onto health, cheap, congestion busting cycles. People who would currently be put of cycling because of the dangers.

As a cyclist who commutes into the city centre for work every day, and also as a driver - it doesn't help that the standard of BOTH cycling and driving in this city is just about the worst I have experienced.
Having said this I note that they are spending £250,000 on a cycle route up Magdalen street. When they put the new road layout in place, they built a cycle route that turns right at the lights, and loops round to join Magdalen Street half way up.
So why are they now building a NEW cycle route at more cost? Why not just pull over and fine all the cyclists who ignore the existing cycle route because it takes them slightly out of their way?

@Derek McDonald This is paid for through general taxation, not Vehicle Excise Duty (from which bicycles and low emission cars are exempt). I pay council tax, drive a car and ride a bike. So do most of my neighbours.

Once again money spent on cyclists who nothing. What about the people living in the proposed area's having a say on there roads being blocked to motorists. Another brain dead scheme from a hapless council

Like Pauls & IT Mans comments, often have arguements with other cyclists while sitting at the lights and they just go straight through or up the pavement. Maybe we need London's Droid to go round filiming them and giving them red cards. I see the council representation are on here, hello Mr Jobs Worth.

Can't understand why any of you would feel a ever increasing amount of cars in the city centre is sustainable with space at a premium. There is no need what so ever for people to be driving into the heart of the city other than laziness, (Disability and deliveries aside). Better cycle routes will mean less traffic for those of you who still insist on taking the car.

Is it coincidental that this is announced AFTER the council elections?? It has certainly stopped any form of meaningful debate about it that could effect the outcome of any public consultation & it has thus made it impossible for anyone to have a meaningful say other than to choose between the councils choosen options.
Had this been made public in time for the elections, they could have had a meaningful debate on it & seen the views of the public in the ballot box & thus heard exactly what the public think about the schemes.
Making this known earlier would also have made the views of those standing known & thus allowed them to stand by their convictions.
This looks very much like a deliberate attempt to stop any form of accountability & limit our choice at the election.